#9.
With today’s technological advancements, the publics ability to speak their mind and share their voices has increased tenfold — specifically via the news and social media. Opinion-based articles are much more diverse and actually quite common throughout the realm of communications and provide an intellectual insight pertaining to certain topics in a more in-depth manner.
As I was continuing my research of op-ed articles, I came across three very interesting pieces each relating to a different subject: 1) with the Oscars premiering tonight, Stanley Fish decided to write an intriguing argument revolving around the issue of diversification at the Awards ceremony; 2) Donald Trump has been making some crazy headlines to appeal to the masses and it seems Dana Milbank has figured out the reason behind Trump’s success in his latest article; 3) Jillian Jordan and her team of researchers from Harvard university decided to study Society’s “morality” and just exactly how it affects a person’s individuality resulting in a very interesting read.
Stanley Fish provided an ample amount of evidence to back up many of his claims and constituted insightful warrants to said claims. In his opinion, the reason behind Hollywood’s inability to include a diversified group of people ranging from various backgrounds is because Hollywood is not in the “business” of “doing good” by others. He goes on to support this viewpoint by providing an example in which a study was performed to see how race and gender created disparities when people would go to buy cars from car salesmen: white men were less likely to be charged a markup fee, women were charged with a high mark-up fee, and people of color were charged double the amount towards women. In the car salesmen defense, it was stated that they prepared “careful” calculations on which group would hold less of a financial risk and more of a financial gain. Fish juxtaposed this with the idea that “discriminating is not what the studios set out to do” and that they are simply performing on “professional calculations” that will generate the most viewership as well as the most money. Fish goes on to provide a counterargument and even a counter-counter argument to show the range of opinions that the topic of diversification could lead to. He also acknowledges the complexity of the argument in question and the two warring sides in this conversation: the liberals who want to take the moral approach vs. the conservatives who want to continue on with the ways of “merit.” Fish quotes the latter word to enunciate the changing definitions of the term and ends his piece on a cliff-hanger handing the proverbial mic to Chris Rock.
On a more humorous note, Dana Milbank decides to question the literacy skills of many of the Presidential candidates — all of whom have varying degrees of success from reputable universities — who speak to the public as if we were all children in a time-out. The worst of them all, according to Milbank, is Trump who speaks on the level of a “third grader.” This article provides a smart yet comical outlook on the whole topic and even provides short clips to emphasize his points. While the rest of the Presidential candidates at least speak at a high-school level and treat the public as educated individuals, Trump takes the “simple” route of a third-grader still learning to string along their sentences with simple, repeated phrases. Milbank believes that “this [is] no anomaly.” The term anomaly means something that deviates from the norm, and in regards to this conversation, Trump actively chooses to speak in such a manner in order for the public to “see Donald, see Donald run, [and] see Donald win.” And though this tactic is highly insulting to the vast majority of Americans, it seems to gather just the reaction Trump’s campaign wants — supporters and votes. Milbank provides a mocking perspective towards not only Trump himself, but to the public as well for settling for the most easily recognizable candidate who speaks at an elementary school level and ends with a mocking declarative statement “Win, Donald, win. Grab, Donald, grab. See Donald make America great again.” (Since when has America not been great?)
This last article made not only for a very interesting read but also generated a sub-connection with the first article in the sense that the issue of Morality plays an ambiguous role in society. Jillian Jordan’s “What’s the Point of Moral Outrage?” provides a creative out-look into the inner workings of individuals need to speak on behalf of issues that sometimes do not have any relation to them personally. Jordan, along with her co-writers and investigators Paul Bloom, Moshie Hoffman, and David Rand, give us their insights via their study and written piece. They began by addressing the question of whether or not moral outrage has any connection to the “‘selfish’ process of evolution?” After conducting an experimental study, the team came to the conclusion that moral outrage does have a connection to peoples subconscious needs to alleviate their reputation as being a better “fit” in society. The target of this op-ed wasn’t to create the notion that people only stand up for others if it is in their best interest, rather it is the complete opposite; it is to provide a critical perspective in the inner workings of just how primal humans are in their nature and how our basal instincts are connected to our every-day life.
The topics for all opinion-related articles will always be varying and very well thought-out with an ample amount of evidence and analysis in order to show the diversification of opinions on a more global scope; just like science fiction writer Harlan Ellison said, “we are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions.”
humanisticmusings 